Hello everyone On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Ian] > ... but the underlying love of the human has to still be there or there is > little point (value) to the communications. > > [Arlo] > There are more reasons one can value posting other than love of other > person, no?
Hi Arlo Thanks for weighing in. It is good to hear from you. >Arlo: > I'd like to share a quick anecdote. > > A friend of mine relocated his family to the South. His son's teachers > immediately began complaining about his "rude" behavior. They held > parent-teacher conferences. Nothing changed. Then his son discovered > something. By addending his words with "bless his soul", suddenly he was no > longer getting in trouble for being rude. Saying "Arlo is a friggin' > jackass" was rude, but saying "Arlo is a friggin' jackass, bless his soul" > did not even cause the teachers to blink. > > I am convinced that this second form of insulting, however, is more > insidious. For not only does the *same* insult carry through, but there is > an implied superiority on the part of the speaker. Its not only insulting, > its patronizing. Saying "but I love you" after insulting someone may make > YOU* feel like you are above insulting people, but it should be plain to > everyone that its just as insulting, if not more so, than NOT saying "but I > love you". Dan: Yes, I can see your point and I agree with it... which is why I don't come down on the side of peace, love, and understanding. What you're describing seems to me to be a form of social ostracizing. >Arlo: > * That's a generic "YOU", Ian, I don't mean you personally. > > Insert obscure reference to Billy and the Boingers' "You Stink... But I Love > You!". > > And what I see happening now, to a large degree, is a condemnation of the > "You stink!" people by the "You stink... but I love you!" people. I say > this, if you think I'm a jackass, call me a jackass, but don't pretend that > adding "but I love you" afterwards absolves you from wielding insults. Dan: Well, as I said before, if it isn't a constructive criticism, then why even offer it? Is calling someone a jackass constructive? >Arlo: > If there is a situation here, its between Steve and DMB, they are mature > adults. If the conversation continues, its because they value it (for their > own reasons). If either wanted out, the door is easy to find. Neither are > "victims" and neither is more responsible than the other for the discourse > between them. Everyone repeat that ten times. Dan: I tend to disagree but with a caveat. If the discussion was a private one between Steve and dmb, fine. It is not. It is a discussion being read by who knows how many others. And I think that is something (I think) we all should keep in mind when we post here. >Arlo: > Dan's initial remarks were fine, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with > suggesting detente, sometimes that is the best thing one can suggest. But > notice how its gone further than that. Notice how people not even involved > in the dialogue are jumping in to condemn one of them, like rabid dogs. > Notice how when DMB explains himself he draws an immediate comment from > Marsha about "rationalizing", but when Steve explains himself Marsha is (not > so) oddly silent. And it is any surprise that the Fox News contingent jumps > in with support for Steve, while across a few posts jabbing like a frenzied > monkey at that oh-so-evil academy and its pinheaded interlectials. > > And notice how Mark talks about rising above DMB's rhetoric while saying > "Maybe once he gets back to the real world (if he was ever there), he will > change for the better." You think that was really about condemning > "insulting" others on the list, or just an excuse to make another attack > against those ivory tower pinheads? Or is this proof that here, just like in > the south, veiled or polite insults make one feel superior to one who just > calls a fool a fool. Dan: Good points, all. I noticed what you are describing as well. For the record, I wasn't suggesting a love-fest nor was I condemning dmb and Steve or anyone else, including you, Arlo. i was merely making an observation that (I hoped) would be taken constructively in that it is possible to have a heated debate without hurling insults and innuendos at each other. We are civilized people. Horse brought up how the discussions between Arlo and Platt is a good indicator of what is bringing Western civilization to its knees. And I thought that was a good point. The only thing is, a person has to wade through mountains of totally irrelevant posts to get there. And yes, I am not a fan of Platt's politics (or his music for that matter) but he is entitled to the same common courtesies and politeness that we all are. I saw many, many contributors attacking Platt with no provocation. I guess they saw him as an easy target. >Arlo: > Here's some advice. While DMB is off taking lessons on "how to get along > with others", Marsha why don't you stop and admit that you rabidly attack > nearly everything he says, often for no other reason I can ever see other > than "DMB said it". If you don't like what he has to say, put him on ignore, > don't respond immediately with several dozen insulting emails to nearly > every single post he makes. And Mark, perhaps you didn't notice but your > heroes Platt and Bo set up their own list. If what they have to say is so > much more valuable than the likes of Ant of DMB, why aren't you over there > instead? Why waste your time on a list where people (should) take seriously > the people Pirsig says understand him the best? > > And, in fairness, some advice to me. Go back to scanning Northrop, Arlo, > this entire "debate" has a false premise and you're a fool to get involved. Dan: I am glad that you did. You raise some very good points. Thanks again, Dan Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
